This court examined an objection regarding the maintainability of a PIL due to alleged non-compliance with filing requirements. Noting substantial compliance and pending proceedings in the State, the court disposed of the matter without further action.
The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of without further proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 10
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 420 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
At the very outset, an objection has been raised by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in respect of maintainability of the writ petition in question being Public Interest Litigation by contending that the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in the matter of public interest litigation clearly envisages and obligates that the petitioner, who is seeking to file a public interest litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person body of person or the State but in the present matter the petitioner has not at all discharged all the statutory obligations cast upon him under Chapter XXII Sub-Rule 3-A of Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and in view of the above, once the terms and conditions of filing a public interest litigation has not at all been fulfilled, the same should be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.46849 of 2011, Manoj Bhati, Advocate And Another v. State Of U.P. & Ors. and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.17783 of 2017, Sangeeta Yadav and Others v. State Of U.P. & Others .
In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the Court at this juncture proceeds to extract Chapter XXII Sub-Rule 3-A of Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952:-
"3-A. In addition to satisfying the requirement of the other rules, in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person body of person or the State."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court
finds substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel. However, bare persual of instruction dated 10.03.2019, this much is also reflected that substantial compliance has been made in the matter and it has also been apprised that certain proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are on. In such situation, there is no requirement to proceed any further by this Court. Needless to say that the aforesaid proceeding would be decided independently without being influenced from the observations made above.
With the above, present public interest litigation stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.5.2019 A. Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the PIL is maintainable due to non-compliance with the affidavit requirements under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 regarding filing of PIL.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Bhati, Advocate And Another v. State Of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶5
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.46849 of 2011, Manoj Bhati, Advocate And Another v. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Sangeeta Yadav and Others v. State Of U.P. & OthersReferred¶5
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.17783 of 2017, Sangeeta Yadav and Others v. State Of U.P. & Others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandeep Kumar
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
